<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>> Gayle Kennedy <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > We get in a lot of trouble saying that we react to various foods with > quick and unpleasant reactions and therefore they must contain gluten. I'd > be willing to bet that more than half of the people on this LIST have > celiac-type symptoms in reaction to one or two foods that do NOT contain > gluten. And it is equally possible that many of us can eat one or even two > foods that do contain minimal amounts of gluten and not have a reaction. > That is no reason to tell this list that those foods are safe. > > Let's bend over backwards trying to be scientifically correct in > mentioning foods and stating whether or not they contain gluten. Many of > us have a really serious concern about the mis-information that is included > in CSA/USA's list of gluten-contaianing foods. I agree with Gayle that we should be diligent about making our posts accurate and clear. Some things obviously contain gluten and some things obviously don't, and we should be careful never to misrepresent these. In particular, we should be careful with ambiguous wording: is "mustard" the seed or the sauce? And we should not be cavalier with "I reacted so it contains gluten" or the converse "I didn't react so it should be OK". What I'd like cleaned up is the grey areas. Some people don't accept grey, whereas others like me want to assess risk. I want to eliminate the major sources of the gluten that I get. The miniscule sources that slip by should be swamped by the things that give me my occasional reactions. So instead of the usual two categories "GF" and "not GF", I'd prefer a gradation: 1. GF 2. probably GF but the company can't guarantee it 3. some people have problems with it and suspect gluten 4. not GF (This is somewhat like the guilty/not guilty verdicts that don't distinguish between "we proved he didn't do it" and "everyone knows he did it, but he got off") GF and not GF should be unambiguous. GF: highly likely to contain no gluten (or within some tolerance). Not GF: contains (or is likely to be significantly contaminated with) gluten. (2) should be things which most of us would consider low risk. Extremely sensitive people might avoid them just to be sure. (3) is useful whether or not the cause is gluten. If many of us have a problem with it, it can help people identify their problems. This kind of reporting helped me find my problems with Hershey's chocolate bars, for example. It's possibly GF, but several of us had problems anyway. I guess I really have several points: - in our posts, "not GF" should be reserved for things that are not GF - our case histories are useful, so long as we remember that our bodies are sensitive but unreliable gluten detectors - on labels I'd appreciate warnings like what I saw on President's Choice cheesecake: "Warning: this product may contain trace amounts of flour or nuts". This clearly places this product in category 2. I'd like to see gum and toffee clearly labelled with some stronger warning. I don't want the "likely safe" labelling diluted to be useless, like it is for nuts. - I suspect that militance on a "GF/non-GF dichotomy" will lead to uninformative labelling and over-restrictive diets. Stuart